If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

For programming, gcc is da way ta go, real powerful compiler, I love it. I even heard there is a GUI for it though I have yet to find it. But these people here aren't talking about power, they are talking about stability, which is easily contestable. Perhaps MS should add some programming utils to their next OS. They are also arguing about bugs, which is easily arguable by saying 2 things. 1. There are many *nix system exploits that I have seen online, they aren't as popular as more works needs to be done to compile them and then to find a vulnerable system. 2. MS is the most user friendly and used OS making it more interesting and worthwhile to hack and create cracks for, it is more popular and so is more often attacked.

Originally posted here by alittlebitnumb M$ has some great stuff depending on what ya wanna do, and not every OS is for everybody. I myself use M$ for legacy apps and games (gotta love Max Payne I suppose), but for programming, networking, servers and stability, I prefer *NIX. Not everybody will agree with this, but this has been a source of debate since the inception of the OS itself.

Moreover folks, if you are tired of something and want something different cuz it does not meet your needs, by all means move on. I happen to use both

In many ways that is why MS has done so well. As a product for your normal end user, it works very well in an office or a home environment. Which I'm afraid is not something you can say about *nix. It will probably get there, but hasn't done so yet.
However when it comes to running servers, *nix has the edge, although Win2k is pretty good.
But most flavours of *nix/Windows have very weak internal security compared to that used by mainframe OS - but these OS are about 30 years old, and have closed all the obvious loopholes.
For example, working as a systems programmer (sysadmin) on an IBM mainframe, with what is effectively root access, I do not have access to users data that has been protected. Not that I want to, and I've never met anyone who would be tempted to do this. Like anything, there are ways to get around this, but the chances of deleting/fudging the audit trail are almost nonexistant.

Hi,
Here are my reasons for not liking Microsoft:
1) Their business practices.
2) The fact that I think that their software is overpriced. Windows XP Home Edition costs around $200.00. A
Mandrake Linux 8.2 PowerPack edition costs about $69.00. (But you can download many Linux versions for free). With the Mandrake you get three (Count 'em) office suites. What do you get with Microsoft? Word Pad, and maybe Microsoft works I guess. Plus, if you want any other software (gui ftp client, irc client, graphics (other than MS Paint) you will have to look for it yourself at freeware sites or buy it. You can get hundreds of programs with most
Linux distros.
3) Linux is much more customizable.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 6:23, WEB)

I do not believe you understand why linux is so cheap, or you would not be using that as proof. Linux is cheap because usually you are not paying for the OS, you are paying for extras and tech support, partly because linux is open source and if linux was highly priced then people would find a way to use the source code to create their won OS installers and then the linux companies would have nothing. MS on the other hand is different, they control windows, nobody else has the right to check out the source code unless MS says ok which is part of why they can price their products higher. Also they include a lot of things with their OSs and there OSs are also more supported than linux. And one more thing, have you even seen the MS campus in Redmond? Man, they probably have to price XP that much jus' to afford the property taxes on that place.

Hi,
I'm well aware of the facts you mentioned. That's exactly why Linux is so much cheaper (and free). Microsoft
does not control it. By what you're saying you're proving my point. And for $200.00 a pop, you ought to
get a lot of support. And as for the extravangance of the MS campus in Redmond, I'm sure that's one of the
major reasons Microsoft products are so expensive. But Microsoft being able to afford nice buildings doesn't
make their software worth anymore than it is. Linux is cheaper not because it's inferior, it's cheaper because it's
not controlled by Microsoft. For $199.00, you should get more than you do.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 6:23, WEB)